Ryken 1 Ross Ryken May 14, 2012 A Green Area: Identifying Greenwashed Products If the 70’s and 80’s were the era of rock and roll, then the 90’s and beyond mark the environmental age. As recently as 2006, Al Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, excited the public’s imagination and made “global warming” a household word. Likewise, stunts such as Greanpeace’s attacks on genetically modified wheat crops have increasingly captured the public’s attention (Gough 1). Along with this surge in environmental concern (a 1990 poll revealed that 90% of participants would “make a special effort” to buy products from environmentally responsible companies) a new challenge emerged: discerning genuine green products from those bolstered by deceptive marketing fluff (Wasik 8). This challenge first surfaced with Earth Day 1990; while the event symbolically kicked off the “environmental decade”, a sinister shadow loomed over the proceedings (Wasik 8). At the surface, Earth Day saw 200 million participants in 141 countries ceremonially plant trees, while pledging to drive less and
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Ryken 1
Ross Ryken
May 14, 2012
A Green Area: Identifying Greenwashed Products
If the 70’s and 80’s were the era of rock and roll, then the 90’s and beyond mark the
environmental age. As recently as 2006, Al Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, excited the
public’s imagination and made “global warming” a household word. Likewise, stunts such as
Greanpeace’s attacks on genetically modified wheat crops have increasingly captured the
public’s attention (Gough 1). Along with this surge in environmental concern (a 1990 poll
revealed that 90% of participants would “make a special effort” to buy products from
environmentally responsible companies) a new challenge emerged: discerning genuine green
products from those bolstered by deceptive marketing fluff (Wasik 8).
This challenge first surfaced with Earth Day 1990; while the event symbolically kicked
off the “environmental decade”, a sinister shadow loomed over the proceedings (Wasik 8). At
the surface, Earth Day saw 200 million participants in 141 countries ceremonially plant trees,
while pledging to drive less and recycle more (Greenlife). Yet the event (which distinctly
omitted talks of corporate reform) was sponsored by notorious polluters such as Monsanto,
Peabody Coal, and Georgia Power (Tokar 14). In fact, Earth Day 1990 gave birth to the practice
of “corporate greenwash”, defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “disinformation
disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image”
(Soanes). Greenwashing is of grave public concern due to its immense prevalence in modern
advertising. While the percentage of purportedly green products increased from 1.1% in 1986 to
13.1% in 1993 (Wasik 9), a 1991 study found that wholly 58% of ads for such products
contained some degree of deception (Laverie 258-67). The pervasiveness of greenwashing
Ryken 2
necessitates a guideline for consumers. In this paper, I will establish a framework for
differentiating between a green product (which causes minimal damage to the environment
throughout its lifetime) and a greenwashed product (which is deceptively and inaccurately
presented as a green product). To qualify as legitimately green, a product’s advertised merits
must first and foremost be accurate. Furthermore, both the end product and preceding operations
(such as manufacturing and transportation) must minimally harm the environment. Finally, the
manufacturing company’s holistic practices must coincide with the environmental merits of the
product in question.
When assessing purportedly green products, it is tempting to spotlight advertiser’s intent
as the yardstick. After all, genuine attempts to save the planet seem legitimate, while profit-
motivated products scream greenwash. For example, dubious hotel guests will question linen
cards that encourage lodgers to “reduce energy by choosing to reuse sheets” (Hurst). A valid
argument can be mad
Figure 1: Linen Card at the Marriot Monterey Hotel (Hurst).
argument can certainly be made that this card is intended as a money saving ploy, cleverly
disguised as a noble environmental campaign. Indeed, Shlomo Sher, in “A Framework for
Assessing Immorally Manipulative Marketing Tactics”, focuses solely on advertisers’ intent.
Ryken 3
Sher defines manipulation as attempting to motivate consumers’ behavior by “undermining what
the agent believes is his/her audience’s normal decision-making process” (Sher 1). Sher
provides a reasonable guide for corporations; however, he does little to help consumers assess
products that are already on the market. Usually, corporate intent is impossible to prove in
retrospect since scant inside information is available to the public. Further complicating the
situation, multiple motivating factors often shape decisions. A genuinely green product may
simultaneously benefit a company’s bottom line by capturing a strategic market segment that
creates “decisive advantage” (Stalk 49). To illustrate, Xerox invested $10 million into a toner
cartridge-recycling program. The program not only reduced waste, but also generated $200
million in profits (Wasik 3). Evidently, assessing corporate intent is near impossible for
consumers; therefore, allegedly green products must be judged based on observable criteria.
In order to avoid the label of greenwash, virtually all consumers agree that a product’s
advertised merits must be accurate. At first glance, this seems like an endpoint; if the product’s
label contains no word of a lie, then surely no greenwashing is at play. Yet while this standard
catches outright lies, it fails to account for subtler and more prevalent tactics. First off,
marketing claims are often unverifiable or irrelevant. Take, for example, a glossy ‘CFC Free’
sticker slapped onto a new refrigerator; while the claim is technically true (no CFC’s are
present), it is misleading because CFC’s in kitchen appliances have been banned since 1987.
Even more brazen are fabricated certifications and labels. The FTC shut down “Tested Green”
in 2012, upon discovering that the company certified any product for a $189.95 fee (Gang 24).
In fact, TerraChoice’s recent greenwashing report found that 30% of 4744 tested products
boasted false certifications (TerraChoice 7). Even more shrewdly, advertisers often simply omit
hidden trade offs. Automobile manufacturers frequently tout ethanol-powered cars as